A corollary to the Bell Curve: why does not one get upset when conclusions are reached that Asians, on average, score higher IQs than whites? In fact, depending on what list you read, the top five highest IQs alive include three or four people with Asian genes. No one seems to get twisted over this. No one also seems to even include Hispanics in most of these discussions. Obviously there's social context and history involved in these conversations but that does not seem to account for all of this IMO.

Who would be getting upset here, the whites for falling short or the asians for always scoring higher ?the difference is that you are discriminating advantageously, generally speaking, by placing in higher esteem the better-scoring asiatics. another way to think of it is that the asians work toward their higher scores, and so it is more generally attributable to behavior. i don't think you can conclude that blacks actively and intently work toward scoring less.

but I think there have been studies looking at the disadvantage of being asian in, say, college applications due to the higher scores (colleges that look to fill quotas will limit the search for asians to higher than average scores to account for that group's performance). and mentioning better-scoring asians may be on the list of micro-aggressions in the PC documents since it can cause anxiety in less than stellar performers in that subgroup.

i haven't read the Bell Curve study only just glanced through the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve , but it would be interesting to note the definition of intelligence and how that maps to a quantifiable and linearly-rankable figure. it doesn't even seem to capture intra-individual variations since the more repeated samples would have to be biased toward better scoring by virtue of just becoming a better test taker. maybe there could be a way to assess the rate of improvement between testing sessions, and it's possible they've addressed all this. but it's also a cop-out of sorts to just mention something as being a genetic factor without a mechanistic explanation--which neither a social scientist nor a psychologist will likely study--of how the genes play into the effect, sort of like the abuse of evolutionary genetics to explain away mundane and everyday behaviors and what not.

Who would be getting upset here, the whites for falling short or the asians for always scoring higher ?the difference is that you are discriminating advantageously, generally speaking, by placing in higher esteem the better-scoring asiatics. another way to think of it is that the asians work toward their higher scores, and so it is more generally attributable to behavior. i don't think you can conclude that blacks actively and intently work toward scoring less.

but I think there have been studies looking at the disadvantage of being asian in, say, college applications due to the higher scores (colleges that look to fill quotas will limit the search for asians to higher than average scores to account for that group's performance). and mentioning better-scoring asians may be on the list of micro-aggressions in the PC documents since it can cause anxiety in less than stellar performers in that subgroup.

For Asian immigrants in the US, there's the not-at-all unlikely possibility of selection bias. Many of the Asian immigrants coming over are very well educated, extremely motivated, etc, moreso than their peers at home. It doesn't seem terribly surprising that they might have slightly higher average intelligence than the bulk population of the US.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the shah

i haven't read the Bell Curve study only just glanced through the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve , but it would be interesting to note the definition of intelligence and how that maps to a quantifiable and linearly-rankable figure. it doesn't even seem to capture intra-individual variations since the more repeated samples would have to be biased toward better scoring by virtue of just becoming a better test taker. maybe there could be a way to assess the rate of improvement between testing sessions, and it's possible they've addressed all this. but it's also a cop-out of sorts to just mention something as being a genetic factor without a mechanistic explanation--which neither a social scientist nor a psychologist will likely study--of how the genes play into the effect, sort of like the abuse of evolutionary genetics to explain away mundane and everyday behaviors and what not.

The genetics element is really the key bit. If it were genetic, there ought to be evidence in the genes for it. From the slight amount of reading I've done and the general statements from experts after the Watson statements, there's no such evidence. There is an observed effect, but the cause isn't known.

Watson has, over the years, pegged all sorts of dumb stereotypes on genetics. Whether you can make a case for the "blacks are genetically dumber" argument or not, it fit right in line with his history of saying dumb shit and not an argument of evidence.

I'm a bit confused by your argument that there should be a "smart" gene. Have you seen how eye color is determined? Apparently it's through the complex interplay of dozens of genes, which is still not understood. Why you would expect the genes for something like intelligence (nebulous as it is) to be readily determinable at this point in time?

That being said, the evidence that intelligence is inheritable is overwhelming, at least as I understand it.

That being said, the evidence that intelligence is inheritable is overwhelming, at least as I understand it.

In the wiki link TS provided someone feels they have countered the heritable aspect by saying wearing earrings, up until recently, was highly heritable as only women would wear them so it was genetically determined if one would wear earrings or not. An interesting "counter" indeed.

As far as Asians in the US being self-selecting...has anyone looked at OECD data? I have...

IDK. I mean, I just don't know what to think. I'm 100% sure a material part of IQ is environmental. What I'm not 100% sure of is that none of IQ is genetically inheritable.

I also think it's important to remember population aggregates do not capture individual examples.

One doesn't say "cite to" in English. Better that you don't try to be clever - it's not working.
You're just another example of someone spewing hate at anyone who states simple facts which conflict with your ignorant politics.

I didn't say anything, I don't have a speech to text program on my computer. Irregardless you are still a jackass who hasn't read the Bell Curve.

I'm a bit confused by your argument that there should be a "smart" gene. Have you seen how eye color is determined? Apparently it's through the complex interplay of dozens of genes, which is still not understood. Why you would expect the genes for something like intelligence (nebulous as it is) to be readily determinable at this point in time?

That being said, the evidence that intelligence is inheritable is overwhelming, at least as I understand it.

Claims require evidence. If someone is going to claim that intelligence has a genetic cause, they need to have genetic evidence. Otherwise, there are myriad other possible causes and genetics might be one of them. I'm not going to say that intelligence isn't genetic, just that the evidence that it is genetic isn't very good.

There's no even firm genetic evidence that our differentiation of races is meaningful. There's as much variation within "races" as across them.

Relating back to Watson, he claimed at one point that genetics explained the "Latin Lover" stereotype, among other similar dumb claims. He's full of shit.

Claims require evidence. If someone is going to claim that intelligence has a genetic cause, they need to have genetic evidence. Otherwise, there are myriad other possible causes and genetics might be one of them. I'm not going to say that intelligence isn't genetic, just that the evidence that it is genetic isn't very good.

Since genes are the means by which traits are passed from parent to child, why exactly do we have to know which ones specifically code for something? And the "myriad" other causes can and have been addressed without resort to genetics. Which other causes did you have in mind that can't be eliminated by, say, studies of adopted twins or the like?

You sound like one of those climate deniers. If we can't observe it, we can't prove it!

Quote:

There's no even firm genetic evidence that our differentiation of races is meaningful. There's as much variation within "races" as across them.

I've heard this many times before, but never what it's supposed to mean or why it's supposed to be significant. So, how 'bout it?

Since genes are the means by which traits are passed from parent to child, why exactly do we have to know which ones specifically code for something? And the "myriad" other causes can and have been addressed without resort to genetics. Which other causes did you have in mind that can't be eliminated by, say, studies of adopted twins or the like?

There's a couple levels of understanding missing there. First, prove that intelligence is genetic (probably to some extent or another). Second, show that different races have differences in those genetics that account for lower intelligence.

I'm not any kind of genetics expert, but every review article I bothered to skim indicates that for sure the latter has not been demonstrated. "Intelligence" is a very broad thing and we're in the nascent stages of understanding it. Until that evidence comes in, it would really behoove any scientist investigating the matter to be extremely cautious making conclusions, especially if said conclusions are coming from a soapbox.

Quote:

You sound like one of those climate deniers. If we can't observe it, we can't prove it!

That's a funny analogy, considering the physics are robustly understood there. It would be like knowing about all the genes driving intelligence, but not exactly being able to predict what IQ would result.

Quote:

I've heard this many times before, but never what it's supposed to mean or why it's supposed to be significant. So, how 'bout it?

If you can't even define someone's race by reading their genes, how can you make conclusions about racially categorized characteristics?

For a hundred bucks you can get a DNA test that can not only tell you what continent your ancestors came from, but detect mixed ancestry in amounts as small as 5% to 0.5%, depending on the company's claims and their standard of reliability. Since they can do this from a saliva sample rather than a sociology paper, I'm not sure how what you said could be true. It reminds me of this:

"Race is a social construct."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gibonius

"Intelligence" is a very broad thing and we're in the nascent stages of understanding it. Until that evidence comes in, it would really behoove any scientist investigating the matter to be extremely cautious making conclusions, especially if said conclusions are coming from a soapbox.

This is a cop-out if I've ever seen one. We don't to be able to perfectly define what intelligence is to measure it, just like we don't have to perfectly define what the "temperature" of the Earth is. Or race for that matter. Close enough is close enough. Your arguments sound like nothing but semantics.

For a hundred bucks you can get a DNA test that can not only tell you what continent your ancestors came from, but detect mixed ancestry in amounts as small as 5% to 0.5%, depending on the company's claims and their standard of reliability. Since they can do this from a saliva sample rather than a sociology paper, I'm not sure how what you said could be true. It reminds me of this:

Because race is a qualitatively simpler concept than eye color, you mean? At least decide what your argument is and try to be consistent.

This is a cop-out if I've ever seen one. We don't to be able to perfectly define what intelligence is to measure it, just like we don't have to perfectly define what the "temperature" of the Earth is. Or race for that matter. Close enough is close enough. Your arguments sound like nothing but semantics.